Get Backlinks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the tool accepts paths with or without .md extension and falls back to basename matching if exact match fails. It also describes the result structure (source note path, line number, surrounding text). This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence defines the core action and output, second gives use cases, third explains path handling. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the most important information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, result format, use cases, and path handling. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent nature. The description is complete and leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers the 'path' parameter with a description. The tool description adds significant semantic value by explaining the fallback matching behavior and that the extension is optional. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the extra details elevate the score to 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear action ('List all notes that contain a wikilink pointing to the target note'), specifies the resource (backlinks of a target note), and the result format. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_outlinks (which lists outgoing links) and find_broken_links, so the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use to understand which notes reference a topic, or to assess the impact of renaming or deleting a note,' providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage given similar sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.